Some interesting comments in here. Why does HTC still want to challenge the ring oscillator? I guess they lost?

8. After receiving the Court’s December 4, 2012 claim construction order, I called

Acer’s counsel, Dr. Timothy Walker, on December 6, 2012. Dr. Walker and I recently tried an

ITC case together as co-defense counsel (in July 2012), so I knew that he understood the

requirements associated with an ITC trial and post-trial briefing. I pointed out that there was an

obvious conflict between the 853 Investigation’s trial and post-trial briefing and the trial

currently set for June 24, 2013 in this case. I suggested that the parties agree to continue the trial

date in this case to avoid the scheduling conflict. Dr. Walker said that he would check with his

client and HTC’s counsel and get back to me.

9. I followed up with an e-mail to Dr. Walker on December 7, 2012. Dr. Walker

responded that Acer and HTC did not wish to change the trial date in this case, and would

oppose any motion by TPL for a continuance. A copy of the e-mail exchange between Dr.

Walker and myself is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit C.

10. On December 7, 2012, Dr. Kyle Chen (counsel for HTC) sent me an e-mail to ask

whether TPL would oppose a motion by HTC to submit additional claim construction briefing in

this case. A copy of Dr. Chen’s e-mail to me is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit D. In

TPL’s view, the terms and phrases for which HTC seeks construction have already been

construed by this Court (

, “ring oscillator”), or are not the subject of any dispute between the

parties. Thus, I informed Dr. Chen that TPL would oppose any such motion by HTC.